Disappearance Day -

Everyone seems to have just disappeared for the last two days.

Radhe!

i was thinking the same.

something wrong?

BTW, anyone checked out the hillarious posts from a certain Frodo at isthagosthi.org?



Tarunji

Is he referring to saraswata.net perhaps?

If somebody feel boredom without new bits of discussion, here is a new letter from our dear friend Swami Tripurari to my opponent at another forum (his name is Indradyumna das). It is stated, that questions are mine... Actually, they are from article by Madhavanandaji, and I told my opponent about this fact, but he preferred to send letter with questions, as if they were mine. Sorry for that.

----------------------------------

QUOESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Swami Tripurari:
I do not have much time for this but my brief answers are below. But his question/challenge ignores the substance of my sanga that he cited. Attached
( http://www.russianpaintings.net/SixGoswamis.zip )
also is a long document written by a disciple of Sridhara Maharaja, in which much of the history of BSST is found. That history should be useful in combating these arguments. I do not think this person wants to be convinced, but rather has been convinced by something that I do not find convincing-speculation and hearsay.

1.
QUESTION BY KALKI:
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was in the habit of visiting Ramakrishna Dasa Pandita Babaji during his visits to Vrindavana since he was without a doubt one of the most respected of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas of the 1920s and 1930s. On one occasion Sarasvati was highly praising Gaura Kishora Babaji in Pandita Baba's presence. Pandita Baba asked him if he had received initiation from him. Sarasvati said he had received it in a dream. Pandita Babaji said that that was fine, but he should receive it in the flesh since that is the only type of initiation accepted in the Caitanya tradition. Bhaktisiddhanta said he would and ended the visit.
Years later Sarasvati returned to Vrindavana as the acarya of the Gaudiya Matha, a famous man. He visited Pandita Babaji and was asked again if he had gotten initiation from Gaura Kishora Dasa Baba. His answer was the same, at which point Pandita Baba got extremely angry with him for
making disciples without proper initiation. This incident was witnessed by Sri Kisori Mohana Gosvami, Sri Kisori Dasa Babaji and Advaita Dasa Babaji of Govardhan.

ANSWER OF SWAMI TRIPURARI:
There is no record of BSST ever going to Vrindavan before he started Gaudiya Matha, nor did he ever tell anyone that his was initiated in a dream. He has related the story of his initiation in writing. The story is well known. Why would he then tell someone else he received it in a dream? We do not accept the above account as anything more than hearsay. Also, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not us. Hearsay is not proof.


2.
QUESTION BY KALKI:
There is no indication of Sarasvati’s being initiated by Babaji Maharaja in any of his objective biographies, objective meaning compiled by anyone who would not be bound out of prejudice to accept the statement of Sarasvati, being a follower of his. The brother of Sarasvati, Lalita Prasada Thakura, denies Sarasvati’s receiving diksa from Babaji Maharaja. The pujari and other residents of Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji’s bhajana kutira knew of only four disciples of Babaji, but Sarasvati was not among them.

ANSWER OF SWAMI TRIPURARI:
I am unaware of any biographies of BSST other than those of his followers. The objector must first produce one. For that matter, if there is one, what makes it objective? Those opposed to BSST may be prejudiced against him. Secondly the objector is implying that the disciples of BSST who have written about him and of their experiences with Gaura Kishore, his affection for BSST, etc are all liars. This is not reasonable.

Where has Lalita Prasada written that BSST was not initiated? History reveals that he was serving under BSST in the beginning of the formation of Gaudiya Matha and that at that time BSST was accepting disciples while Bhaktivinoda and Gaura Kishore were still present, that is, with their blessings. Later on after the disappearance of BVT Lalita Prasada parted ways with BSST.


3.
QUESTION BY KALKI:
Sarasvati did not reveal the parampara of Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji to his followers. In fact, even the name of Babaji Maharaja’s diksa-guru is was not revealed by Sarasvati. Indeed, there is confusion so much so that even the author states (page 51) that Babaji Maharaja received diksa in the line of Jahnava Thakurani, whereas he is actually a member of the Advaitaparivara, having received diksa from Nandakisora Gosvami of Shantipura. Now, why would a disciple not reveal the diksa-parampara of his guru? It is a common practice that at the time of diksa the guru reveals his guru-pranali, or the succession of gurus back to the time of Sriman Mahaprabhu and His associates. Could it be that Sarasvati was not initiated and did not receive information about the guru-parampara of Gaura Kisora Baba, and therefore he had to produce a parampara of his own design?

ANSWER OF SWAMI TRIPURARI:
The obvious answer to this is that BSST stressed his conception of a Bhagavata or siksa guru parampara.

4.
QUESTION BY KALKI:
According to Hari Bhakti Vilasa (2.8.5), at the time of diksa the guru bestows the specific sectarian signs he carries unto the disciple.
sampradayika mudradi bhusitam tam krtanjalim
In his commentary on this verse, Sri Sanatana Gosvami explains: sampradayikam guru-paramparasiddham, “This sampradayika refers to the guru-parampara,” and mudra tilaka maladi, “And mudra refers to tilaka and strings of beads.” Consequently the recognized parivaras, like Nityananda-parivara, Advaita-parivara and Syamananda-parivara, have their specific tilaka-svarupa. If Sarasvati received diksa, why is it that he and his followers have adopted a tilaka which was not worn by his diksaguru, who must have at the time of diksa given a specific tilaka-svarupa to Sarasvati?


ANSWER OF SWAMI TRIPURARI:
If you look at the pictures of BSST's tilaka you will see that he wears either the tilaka of the Advaita-parivara or a generic brand of Gaudiya tilaka. Can you prove to us what the tilaka of Gaura Kishore looked like? This is a silly argument.


5.
QUESTION BY KALKI:
Wherefrom did Sarasvati receive the sacred thread and the brahmagayatri, which he passed on to his disciples? Certainly not from Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji, who was a vaisya by birth, and did not chant the brahma-gayatri, nor wear a sacred thread.

ANSWER OF SWAMI TRIPURARI:
These were innovations of his own under the influence of Bhaktivinoda, under whose direction he received the Brahma gayatri.


6.
QUESTION BY KALKI:
What is the origin of the specific set of mantras given in the line of Sarasvati? Hari Bhakti Vilasa mentions Gopala Mantra and Kama-gayatri as diksa-mantras. The paddhatis of Gopala Guru and Dhyanacandra give an elaborate list of mantras for raganuga-sadhana, but the guru-mantra and guru-gayatri given by Sarasvati are different from the ones given in these paddhatis. It is not out of place to mention that even the author and his siksa-guru Bhaktivedanta Swami have given the diksa-mantras in a slightly different way, although they are supposed to have a common origin, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.

ANSWER OF SWAMI TRIPURARI:
The mantras are the same in meaning and 99% the same in form. He gave Gopala mantra and Kama gayatri, along with Gaura and Guru mantras/gayatris. There is only a slight difference in the guru mantra from that given in some of the other Gaudiya lines. This is not a substantial argument, nor are any of the above points of any real substance, especially in he face of so much evidence to the contrary. These arguments basically say, "We thing your guru was not initiated." And they ignore all of the evidence to the contrary as well as spiritual common sense. They prove nothing other than the fact that the doubter doubts the source of his own faith in Krsna consciousness.
-----------------

Just one more answer for another discussion with the same person:

The letter of Swami Tripurari

Although smaranam is central to raganuga bhakti and its primary limb, it is nonetheless subordinate to kirtanam in kali yuga. Furthermore it is kirtanam that brings about meaningful smarnam. Sanatana Goswami says "If the sense of speech, which influences all the internal and external senses, comes under constant control, the mind becomes steady and engages in comprehensive recollection of the Lord. Thus, smaranam is the result of kirtanam." (Bb 2.3.149)

Brihat-bhagavatamrta stresses the glory of kirtanam over smaranam. BSST says it like this: kirtana prabhave smarana svabhave se kale bhajana-nirjana sambhava, "By the force of kirtana remembrance of one's spiritual identity takes place. At that time one can do nirjana bhajana.

Talk is cheap, but the self sacrifice/saranagati on which the drama of BSST's ongoing kirtana takes place is costly.
-------------

Personally I have been charmed by answer about generic tilakas and answer about 99% similarity of mantas, gived by BSST, to the question about their origin... It resembled me the answer of our local street dealer about chineese fake of 'Adidas' boots: "But they are nearly the same with oroginal! What's the difference?" ...

Why a lack of discussion indicates boredom? Is nobody doing nama bhajana or lila smarana?




Swamiji here ignores the suggestion that BSST started a siksa parampara conception to cover up his own lack of diksa.



I have been wearing Advaita tilak for 22 years. The leaf is a Banyan leaf. BSS was not wearing that. All Gaudiya Vaishnavas of Advaita Parivara, regardless of which branch, wear banyan leaf tilak, but not BSS?



First ACBS has us taught as early as in the bhakta program that parampara means that the teachings pass unchanged from guru to disciple, all the way up to Krishna and now suddenly we must accept 'innovations' made as recently as in the 20th century? What is Bhaktivinod's adhikara for doing this? He was a ksatriya, how can he gave brahma gayatri without having gotten it from anyone himself? What about SB 7.15.14?

Dont know about the pre-GM trip to Vraja, but the post GM trip to Vraja in 1932 or 1933 is for sure. And during that trip BSS told Ramakrishna das that he was initiated in a dream. Hearsay? I personally heard it from the eye witness Kishory Das Babaji in June 1982 in Kalidaha, Vrindavan. He had no reason, like vested interests to defend, to lie to me.



It takes only one liar, the others will just parrot him. Just like someone says, wholly contrary to the teachings of Rupa, Jiva and Visvanatha, that one must be completely pure before starting raganuga bhakti, and now 10.000 people all over the world faithfully parrot it. The source was just one person.....

Sorry dear Advaitaji... I see, that my post upset you...

It was a mistake to put it here...



Sorry again. It was unsuccessful joke...

Of course, I chant maha-mantra every morning. Lila smarana... Only 'generic' one, since I'm not initiated.

Doing generic lila-smarana, wearing a generic tilaka. Attaining a generic God.

I was hoping for a thread exploring some interesting, peculiar point mentioned in the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu or something along those lines.

NAGMT (pronounce "Nag Meat") :: Not Another Gaudiya Math Thread!

Letter to Swami Tripurari:

As I understood the idea of that posting - the main point of the opponents of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati - is:

> SRI KUNJABIHARI DAS BABAJI MAHARAJA
>
> (1896-1976)

(skipped)

> During this time he continued to organize
> large assemblies in the name of the Gaudiya-Vaisnava-Dharma-Samraksini Sabha (“Council for the protection of the
> Gaudiya-Vaisnava religion”). Those who had been initiated were encouraged to find out their siddha-pranali, while
> those who were initiated in heterodox movements were encouraged to seek reinitiation.

What is your the opinion on the constantly arrising question about 'how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta can be accepted as genuine Guru in Gaudia Vaisnava Tradition from the line of Lord Chaitanya (Six Goswamis) if he probably did not receive his siddha-pranali from Srila Gaura Kishora (or at least he didn't mentioned that either he received or not siddha-pranali in his biography')? AND can the devotee follow the path of Vrajabasis (I mean meditate on his siddha-swarupa, meditate on conduct and mood of servants of Krishna in Vraja, follow other parts of raganuga-sadhana as it mentioned in Goswami-granthas, if he didn't receive his siddha-pranali in the line of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sawaswati?


ANSWER OF SWAMI TRIPURARI:

It is not necessary to receive information about the siddha deha of those in one's parampara (siddha pranali) nor information about one's own siddha eha (ekadasa bhava) in the way that it is given in the present Radha-kunda lineage to attain Vraja bhakti. Although I have never met the present Mahanta of this lineage, from what I have heard he is highly respected by many. However, I also know of several linages in Vraja other than our own that do not agree with the way in which he gives siddha pranali. Some of them are strongly opposed to it.

In our lineage we teach that kirtana gives rise to smaranam on one's siddha deha and the nitya lila as one advances to the stages of ruci and asakti. As one's spiritual inclination as a follower of the inhabitants of Vraja begins to manifest the guru helps the disciple in his sadhana with bhajana siksa. Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati says it like this: kirtana prabhave smarana svabhave sei kale bhajana-nirjana sambhava, "By the power of kirtana meditation on one's svarupa naturally manifests, at which time one can engage in solitary bhajana." Such is the acintya sakti of Krsna nama. Nama is cintamani. Thus if one desires to enter the lila when chanting Krsna nama, one will be successful.

In case you didn't notice, the heterodox movements referred to in the passage you cited are the Baul and other such groups. The way you cite it makes it look like Sri Kunjabihari Dasji organized those assemblies to object to Bhaktisiddhanta's presentation.

Let's hear the names of those groups in Vraja who are opposed to the conception of siddha-pranali generally taught at Radha-kunda.

I would have expected that Swami would know that there is no Radha-kunda lineage as such. Radha-kunda is a village with a population of thousands of people, and various sadhus and other religious men from different traditions have sought refuge there. Sri Ananta Dasji, although the current mahanta, is not the ecclesiastic authority of a church called Radha-kunda. He represents his own lineage. Others at Radha-kunda may have different conceptions.

Would you mind briefly introducing yourself, Indraduymna dasji?

Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji
Srila Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji was born in 1838. He spent almost thirty years as a householder looking after his wife and family. After his wife died, he gave up his business as a grain merchant and approached Bhagavata Dasa Babaji, a disciple of Jagannatha Dasa Babaji, for Babaji initiation. For the next thirty years Srila Gaurakisora travelled from village to village in Vrindavana, continually worshiping the Lord. He lived by begging and slept under trees. He would lie prostrate, offering his humble obeisances to the residents of Vraja, considering them as embodiments of Lord Krishna. He even offered his obeisances to the flowers, trees, and land around him.

Srila Gaurakisora later moved to the Navadvipa where he was to spend the rest of his life, moving from village to village. He would consider these villages to be non-different from Vrindavana. He would dress himself in the discarded cloth used to dress corpses, beg rice from householders, and cook with discarded earthen pots. He would dance on the banks of the Ganges chanting the holy names of Krishna; at other times he would lie on the ground unconscious.

Srila Gaurakisora had very few possessions: Tulasi-mala (Tulasi beads) around his neck; another Tulasi-mala on which he chanted; and a few books such as Narottama Dasa Thakura's Prarthana and Prema Bhakti Chandrika.

Srila Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji refused service from anyone and would not let anyone serve him, though many tried. Although illiterate, he was regarded as vastly learned and self-realised. Many people would consult Srila Gaurakisora, but he was able to detect and reveal sincerity and deceit in people. He showed neither distaste for his enemies nor affection for those dear to him. Srila Gaurakisora was surrounded by many insincere devotees but never encouraged them nor drove them away.

Srila Gaurakisora would often visit Svananda Kunja, a place within Godrumadvipa (one of the nine islands of Navadvipa), where he would listen to Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura talk on Srimad-Bhagavatam and other topics concerning the conclusions of devotional service. Babaji Maharaja would often visit Bhaktivinoda. They would discuss Srimad-Bhagavatam together at Bhaktivinoda Thakura's house. Srila Bhakivinod Thakura, noting the faultless behaviour of Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, held him in the utmost regard and admiration.

In 1900 Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji accepted Bhaktivinoda's son, Bimal Prasad, as his disciple. He gave him the name Varsabhanavi-devi-dayita Dasa; he also gave him the tiger-skin hat and basket that had been given to Gaurakisora by his spiritual master Bhagavat Dasa Babaji, which he in turn had received from Jagannatha dasa Babaji. Varsabhanavi-devi-dayita Dasa later became known as Srila Bhakisiddanta Saraswati Swami Prapbhupada, and was the founder of the Caitanya Mathas and Gaudiya Mathas.

In 1908 Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji Maharaja lost his sight. He refused attempts by Varsabhanavi-devi-dayita Dasa to take him to an eye specialist, preferring instead to chant and worship Krishna. He stopped travelling at this point. He would sit in his bhajana-kutir deeply absorbed in Krishna's pastimes.

On 17 November 1915, Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji Maharaja passed away. His body was placed into a samadhi (tomb) but due to flooding, the samadhi had to be moved. Many Babajis tried to claim the samadhi but were told by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati: 'I am the only disciple of Paramahamsa Babaji Maharaja. Even though I have not accepted sannyasa, I am a celibate brahmacari and by the grace of Babaji Maharaja I am not secretly addicted to abominable habits or involved in fornication as some monkey-like people are. If there is someone amongst the people here present who is a renunciate of stainless character, then he can have Babaji Maharaja's samadhi. We have no objection to that. He, who within the last year, or the last six months, three months, one month or at least within the last three days, has not had illicit connection with a woman will be able to touch this spiritual blissful body. If anyone else touches it he will be completely ruined.' A police inspector who was present asked, 'How will evidence be had for this?' Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati replied: 'I have faith in their word'. At this, one by one all the bogus Babajis slipped away without a word. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati then claimed the samadhi.

Anyone may write stories. Eye-witnesses to the legend?

Some devotees of Radhakunda, personal friends of mine, told me that Jay Nitai Das Babaji, mahanta of Radhakunda in the 1970s, was personally present at the shavadaha of Gaurakishor das Baba, or even built his samadhi personally. He proclaimed that the above story is a slanderous lie and Bhaktisiddhanta was nowhere near the shavadaha of Gaurkishor. Of course, that may be again dismissed as hearsay by others. It is one's word against another's.

So you are calling the author a liar? Is that what you think that ISKCON scholars do? Make up stories? On the other hand, many EYE-WITNESSES that you accept to support your STORY could be paid-off to tell their own lies. I think example is the real testimony more than EYE-WITNESSES. In India you can buy an EYE-WITNESS for a couple of pennies. EYE-WITNESSES are a very poor source for gettting at the truth. The truth will be revealed in how any acharya leads his life.
It all boils down to whose EYE-WITNESSES you want to beleive. Why are yours better than anyone elses?

I heard from somebody who heard from someone that somebody told them that they heard from someone else that a dead babaji said suchandsuch!
Isn't my argument very sound!

Well, is BSS still alive to testify to the contrary?

I doubt that the above story was even circulating back in the early seventies.
How did this so-babaji even hear of this story? Does he have any EYE-WITNESSES?
Was this Jaynitai baba above suspicion? Was he a spotless person? Many despicable men have posed as babajis at Radha-kunda and are still doing so.
Was he one of the "bogus babas" that was exposed by the preaching of Saraswati Goswami? If so, we can certainly understand his motives for trying to discredit the version of events as related by Saraswati Goswami.

Jay Nitai das Baba passed away in 1999 at the age of 107. He was 23 years old in 1915 when GKDB died. He was of immaculate reputation throughout his life. His samadhi stands at Vyas Ghera at Syamakund, his kutir is there too. The devotees who told me his testimony are alive and were born in the 1960s in Germany.



You again excell in prejudice, Sparky. Wonder who taught you that? Never mind, I know...

I wonder whether Baba spoke of building the original samadhi, or whether he was involved when the samadhi was moved. I am under the impression that it was the latter where he was present. Of course I may be completely mistaken.

There shall be no more statements along the lines "By saying this and that, you are accusing such and such of being a liar," with which it is implied that the person making a statement is an offender/questionable/etc. Such provocative and confrontational statements are not conducive for a discussion in which evidence is evaluated in a dispassionate manner.

Ups...

I'm very sorry for all this...

You would think that these items would have been preserved within the Gaudiya Math temples. I wonder if they can be located? If these items could be shown to exist within some Gaudiya Math temple somewhere, it would lend a lot more credibility to the story.

Anybody know anything about these items?

If they are not possessed by some disciple other than Saraswati Goswami, then why not?

Watch out there Advaitaji! If you are not careful you might lose the only person who has joined your fan club!

Cool it, OK Sparky? Dont take it so personally. Who knows what actually happened? Neither you or me were around there back in 1915. I just generally make objection against hearsay, slander and prejudice. Stay in the club, OK? Oh and ---- you're really not alone in there (my fanclub) you know!

By the way, excell only has one L (excel)

I don't know about bhajan, but if I read one more thread like this I will pull out so much hair that I won't be able to sleep my customary twelve hours a day any more.

Makes you doubt the theory on the evolution of species, doesn't it?

Having witnessed these "interdenominational" discussions for the past few months or so, may I say that the general subject of these "discussions" has become so tiresome to read as well as unproductive and leading nowhere?

Instead of coming here and begging acknowledgement of a certain guru-parampara and then whining when it is not received, why not accept the fact that this forum represents an entirely different conception of Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta (prominent one at that) and seek to learn the siddhanta from a different angle, instead of constantly challenging and arguing against it for the sake of it?

You should know that the mood of my last posting and that of Kalkidas (with q/a of Swami Tripurari) should be rated in the context of our discussion with Kalkidas on the Russian forum hari-katha.org/f1.
Kalkidas said that he is follower of Ananta Das Baba and represent his teaching. The main point he (Kalkidas) is trying to popularize there is the concept that if Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati didn’t open his guru-pranali to his disciples – that means that his is not the authoritative guru in the line from Lord Chiatanya (Six Goswamis), that also means that he didn’t receive his siddha-pranali from his Guru Srila Gaura Kishora Das Babaji, that he didn’t receive diksa. The mood of postings from Kalkidas is such that there is no doubts that he is thinking that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati is some kind of bogus Vaisnava imitators like sahajias (Bauls, etc.). After that Kalkidas posted the Sri Kunjabihari Dasaji’s biography in which the idea that if one didn’t receive siddha-pranali should be considered as bogus follower (sahajia) is clear. I don’t have anything against Ananta Das Baba and my opinion is in full consent with the answers of Swami Tripurari. You could read it on your forum. Swami Tripurari answered in full accordance with the mood of the questions of Kalkidas.

I’m disciple of Srila Bhaki Pramod Puri Goswami Maharaj. I stay in Russia. I’m 29.

If you have any doubts or questions – you can write directly to Swami Tripurari and then post his answers here for the public. I’m busy in my business and don’t have much time to answer numerous questions the main point of which is ‘If Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati didn’t receive diksa than he is bogus’. I’m deeply agree with that fact that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received harinam from Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur and diksa from Srila Gaura Kisora Das Babaji. Also I’m agree that you all should see one’s adhikar first and then judge. I’m also fully agree with the position of RASESH on this forum concerning thit question.

PS
Srila Swami Tripurari
http://www.swami.org/sanga/

Actually I said that I don't represent any particular person, Indradyumna ji. What is your purpose for muddle my words?



Wasn't it done simply by your request for give an example of successful preaching of Vaisnavas from traditional lines? Why it should be done for some other purpose, than your personal request?



I told you, that questions was from article by Madhavanandaji, and I simply quoted it. Again you ignored my words.

What is your purpose, Indradyumna? You want to show myself as a liar?

I dont remember seeing in that biography the word sahajiya linked to persons who have no siddha pranali. Isnt this your imagination?

Unfortunately most of us don't know any Russian, and it is therefore hard for us to know the context. Particularly since you don't give it to us prior to posting.



As far as I know, Baba has never given him any such mandate. In fact, I believe the two haven't even met. Since Kalkidas also says that he has not said any such thing, this is pretty much pointless.



It is really quite hard to figure out the sequential logic of the points in this sentence. Anyway, such topics may be discussed, and in fact need to be clarified. As long as the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta do not openly address such matters, so long there will be confusion. You should be happy that they are clarified, in one way or the other.



Thanks for telling us about what he does in some forum of yours. May I ask, what does that have to do with the forums here? Settle your own mess in your own forums, please.




No such thing is said in the biography.



There's really no objective way you can conclusively prove or disprove whether Bhaktisiddhanta received diksa, harinam, a lollipop or a handful of sand from Gaurakisora, so what's the point in arguing over such things? You can argue over circumstantial evidence until the end of your days. Why don't you rather spend your time discussing his teachings and comparing them to the teachings of Rupa Gosvami, if you wish to spend your time with topics related to Bhaktisiddhanta. At any rate, I think most of us have had our fair share of Bhaktisiddhanta-related arguments here, and would be content to just let the Saraswatites mind their own business and do whatever they please wherever they please. Frankly speaking I am really tired of watching the monthly "Here I come and challenge like an angry, hungry lion preacher" episode.

[quote]
[quote]Kalkidas said that he is follower of Ananta Das Baba and represent his teaching.[/quote]

Actually I said that I don't represent any particular person, Indradyumna ji. What is your purpose for muddle my words?
[/quote]

On the russian forum whith the topic ‘Bhaktisiddhanta and conception of pancaratrica-diksha-parampara’
http://www.hari-katha.org/f1/viewtopic.php...266014e1f536d7e

I asked Kalkidas and his answer was clear – that he represents the line of Ananta Das Babaji from Sri Radha-kunda.
I have translated it into English and posted below:

INDRADYUMNA DAS: I’m trying to represent the teaching of the contemporary acarya Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur which he gave in accordance
with time, place and level of consciousness of his followers. PLEASE, TELL ME: WHO IS YOUR ACHARYA WHOM PISITION YOU ARE REPRESENTING?

KALKI DAS: I don’t represent (at least, officially) any contemporary acarya. When I will have received diksa – then the time for your question will be. BUT NEVERTHELESS I WILL TRY TO REPRESENT THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE GAUDIYA TRADITION. THEY ARE: 1) THE ‘CAST’ GOSWAMIS AND 2) BABAJIS OF VRINDAVANA AND NAVADVIPA. FOR EXAMPLE, RADHA-KUNDA MAHANTA PANDIT SRI ANANTA DAS BABADJI MAHARAJA HEADS CONTEMPORARY BABADJI COMMUNITY OF VRAJA-DHAMA. LETS THINK FOR SIMPLICITY THAT I’M FOLLOWING HIS AND HIS DISCIPLES REPRESENTATION OF GAUDIYA TRADITION.


[quote]

[quote]After that Kalkidas posted the Sri Kunjabihari Dasaji’s biography in which the idea that if one didn’t receive siddha-pranali should be considered as bogus follower (sahajia) is clear.[/quote]

Wasn't it done simply by your request for give an example of successful preaching of Vaisnavas from traditional lines? Why it should be done for some other purpose, than your personal request?

[/quote]

I asked you to give example of successful preaching of any other Vaishnavas accept Bhaktisiddhanta in the context of our discussion about authenticity Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati as Guru. You clearly said before that you think that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is not bona fide guru BECAUSE you and and your supportes have some doubts that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta ever received diksa from any body. Your line of thinking was clear: if he didn’t receive diksa (from your point of view) then he didn’t receive guru-pranali (because he didn’t open it to his disciples) and of course he didn’t receive siddha-pranali. ANOTHER WORDS THAT IS YOU WHO THINK THAT SRILA BHAKTISIDDHANTA IS SOME KIND LIKE IMITATORS (SAHAJIYAS, BAULAS ETC).

AFTER THAT YOU POSTED THE BIOGRATHY OF SRI KUJABIHARI DAS WHERE IT’S CLEARLY SAID THAT:


[quote]
He now took steps to recover the knowledge of siddha-pranali which was the key to further advancement on the
spiritual path. With renewed enthusiasm and armed with this deeper understanding of the orthodox tradition,
he managed to convert several of his Sahajiya and Baul neighbours to the path of pure Vaisnavism.

(skipped)

Those who had been initiated were encouraged to find out their siddha-pranali, while those who were initiated in heterodox movements were encouraged
to seek reinitiation.
[/quote]

----------------------
[quote]
[quote]Swami Tripurari answered in full accordance with the mood of the questions of Kalkidas.[/quote]

I told you, that questions was from article by Madhavanandaji, and I simply quoted it. Again you ignored my words.
[/quote]

Actually I said Swami Tripurary YOUR OPINION. If you are qouting Madhavananda then DOESN’T IT MEAN THAT YOU AGREE WHITH HI POSITION?!
The quote from my originall letter to Swami Tripurari:

[quote]
(skipped)

Then he asked you the following questions and the participants of the forum are awaiting the answers directly from you now. You can send me
your answers and I'll post them from your name. So the questions from that guy (Kalki, he is not initiated yet) are (you can see them also
at www.hari-katha.org/f1/viewtopic.php?t=109&start=15&sid=8cb5dc06b6fb3d37451d96fabae358d9 ):

From "Pancaratrika and bhagavata" of Madhavananda das:

a) Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was in the habit of visiting …

[/quote]

and so on – all the questions.

Some of the words of KALKI DAS (in my translation into English) which are showing his attitude to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and the mood of his attitude:

http://www.hari-katha.org/f1/viewtopic.php...808d60dcc55b9cd

[quote]
KALKIDAS:
As soon as Bhaktisiddhanta was showing the extreme degree of extravagance in his ideas, he can be accepted by me as the authority as much as his representation doesn’t contradict the teaching of six Goswamis and other acaryas of the past. Rupa Goswami considers the ardent desire (lodha) as the only necessary adhikar for the discussion of such topics. Neither more nor less. As far as I have such desire, I will discuss such themes and no one like Bhaktisiddhanta can’t forbid it to me.
[/quote]

http://www.hari-katha.org/f1/viewtopic.php...808d60dcc55b9cd
[quote]
KALKIDAS:
Concerning the diksa of Bhaktisiddhanta – you can even not to try to find its evidences, because anyway you won’t. People who have much more access to his works were trying but failed.
[/quote]

http://www.hari-katha.org/f1/viewtopic.php?t=109
[quote]
KALKIDAS:
In rallity I have only two concerns: doubts in receiving by him the pancaratrika diksa in any gaudiya-parampara and his and his followers deviations from original Mahaprabhu’s, His companions and other universally recognized gaudiya-vaishnava acaryas teaching.
[/quote]

Why don't you just sort out your bickering elsewhere. You don't need to drag quarrels you have somewhere else into our forums. Sort them out in your harikatha or wherever you please. If you have a relevant point to discuss, then please do so, and preferably start a new topic for the same. And don't use ALL CAPS WHEN YOU WANT TO SHOUT, because this is no place for shouting. If you want to shout, you can do that in the vast forests of Russia. Not here.

1. I didn't mind to sort my bickering here.

2. When somebody saying lie about the acarya Srila Bhaktisiddhanta publicly - that is my duty as the follower to try to rebut it.

3. Originally Kalkidas placed his questions on your forum, then he placed the answers of Swami Tripurari though I had not asked him. After that I was ought to represent my point of view with the aim of clarification but not bickering. Everyone have the right to say his opinion (at least in Russia).

4. BIG CAPS MEANS - 'the main point' - 'BUT NOT SHOUTING'.

5. I like Russian forests.

Thank you for reading this.

Sorry, dear Madhavaji and all who read this quarrel - I didn't invite Indradyumna to post here...
But I placed some links to this forum, because I made some translations of the materials, that could be found here, so, i must provide links to originals...
I hope, Indradyumna will realize, that this place is for weighed discussion, not for emotions...

Well, we do mind, and suggest you sort out your bickering in the place it started at.



The issue of diksa you cannot prove one way or the other conclusively. Please do not try to challenge others because their faith may differ from yours. If you have hard facts, then an impartial study may be easily conducted and rational conclusions drawn. If you have no hard facts, it is pointless to debate over faith.



Thus far the only thing you've managed to do is misinterpret a clear passage in the short biography of Kunjabihari Das Babaji and voice a strong objection to something you misunderstood. If you have some particular points to make, I suggest you start a new thread and clearly state what you wish to discuss. As it stands, we have practically no context for the debate between yourself and Kalkidas, as most of us don't know Russian. Translating bits and pieces from here and there will not do much good. If you really wish to go on about this issue, please make a new thread and start from a clean desk, presenting the ideas you wish to discuss.



No. Big caps means shouting. Underlining or italics means emphasized point. Common etiquette on the internet.

That's no problem, he may post just as everyone else. It's just that discussions should start from a clean table, not from amidst a heated debate in some Russian forum which moves over to our forums.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Seriously… It makes reading these forums for inspirational words and insightful thoughts rather challenging as some like to make every point and statement a point of contention. At the same time it has been a good thing as I have been immersed in some very good reads such as Sri Guru Tattva Vijnana and Sri Bhakta Tattva Vijnana and Philosophy of Sentiments (Rasadarshan) by Ananta das Babaji, Follow the Angels by BR Sridhar and In the Heart of Krishna by BV Puri (Is there a such thing as liking a book too much?).

I don't envy Madhava's task at keeping things focused as it is a full time job... just look at the other sites to see what I mean. Once you open up internet discussions it just seems to evolve into mindless rhetoric, pointless accusations and name calling. Then again it seems that many of the site administrators like that aspect as it draws attention to their site, albeit for the wrong reasons...

Aspiring to be a servant of the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Is there such a thing as a peace-loving Vaishnava, even in theory?

It's so nice to see KB evolve before our eyes. From "Sparky" to "Rasesh" in a matter of months. I bow down at your lotus feet.

Big mistake. You can see I haven't been around much later. Just wishful thinking I guess. My apologies to Rasaraja Dasji, whose clear head sends beams of Krishna consciousness wherever he goes.

Rasesh hasn't been around for a while now. I don't suppose you are mixing up Rasaraja with Rasesh?

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Please, oh please Vaisnavas, DO NOT mix me up with Rasesh/KB or something named "Sparky". Just the thought hurts my heart and I don't they make heartburn relief for such things...

Aspiring to be a servant of the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Last time I checked we are all spirit souls, and the soul is sparky, as in the Gita.

I have to admit, that Madhava has done a lot to open my eyes and give me some new insights. Jagat has also shown some interesting perspectives. None of this is easy for me to deal with. Not that I am any kind of real devotee anyway.
When I read the lectures of Narayana Maharaja and experience his mood, his attitude and his feeling, I feel like I can understand why Madhava left him for Ananta das Babaji. Particularly, Narayana Maharaja's heated discourses on the evilness of the rtvik system and the so-called rtviks which includes Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhar Maharaja. I think Narayana Maharaja was not willing to even hear the truth about what Prabhupada and Sridhar Maharaja did in regards to using the rtvik system. If we follow Narayana Maharaja's logic we will end up losing all respect and faith in Prabhupada and Sridhar Maharaja. I have rejected Narayan Maharaja for Prabhupada and Sridhar Maharaja. Despite Narayana Maharaja's claims to being a big follower of Prabhupada, I think he is no follower of Prabhupada at all. I have no appeciable regard for Narayana Maharaja, though I try to maintain a formal respect for him. that is about as far as it goes.

Emotionally, this whole predicament is a turmoil in my heart. Narayana Maharaja has preached that the rtvik system is bogus. I don't see where he makes any exception to the rtvik system during the time of Prabhupada. If I pay any attention to Narayana Maharaja I will come to the conclusion that I was never really initiated and that Prabhupada essentially cheated me with his rtivik system and left me in a condition of doubt and skepticism. Sridhar Maharaja implemented a replica of Prabhuapda's ritvik system for a period of time, so that gives me a little encouragement. Other than support from Sridhar Maharaja, Prabhupada's rtvik system stands as controversial in the opinion of most Gaudiya Vaishnavas. It has been endorsed and validated by acharyas from both the Madhva and Ramanuja sampradayas, so that again gives me some support.

I am really about fed up with all this controversy between Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
Why in the hell does it have to be like this? The old senior Gaudiya Math sannyasis have called Narayana Maharaja a sahajiya. Narayana Maharaja has called the babajis at Radha-kunda sahajiyas. Sridhar Maharaja espoused revolutionary concepts. Prabhupada espoused revolutionary concepts. Saraswati Goswami espoused revolutionary concepts. Ananta das Babaji is humbly and quietly, without a lot of fanfare trying to carry on in his own lineage without insulting or attacking anybody. This is a very attractive position to represent.

I really don't know where I stand in all of this. I have no attraction to the ISKCON monolithic bureaucracy. I have no appreciable attraction or faith in Narayana Maharaja. I find Ananta das Babaji as a very attractive figure in the galaxy of Vaishnava stars, though accepting him seems to violate the code of Srila Sridhar Maharaja on the matter of eligibility for these higher principles.

The bottom line for me is that from what I have heard about Ananta das Babaji he is a very elevated Vaishnava representing an authentic parivar of the Gaudiya sampradaya. However, as attractive as he appears to be, I am very turned off by the anti-Saraswata propaganda of his so-called followers. I can't find any escape from the back-biting, fault-finding, petty jealousy and turf-wars. To me, to show any ungratefulness and impudence to the Saraswata parivar, after having spread Krishna conciousness all over the world, is a most horrific abomination. Individuals that were exposed to Vaishnavism and educated into Vaishnavism by the Saraswata parivar are now attacking the legitimacy of the very movement that brought them into Vaishnavism. That is very hard to accept and very hard to justify or deal with. I think that this kind of propaganda is the greatest disservice that anyone can do to the parivar of Ananta das Babaji by bringing this kind of stigma to be identified with his good name. At the same time, I do understand the emotional conditions which prompt this kind of reaction. It's all a pathetic condition for Vaishnavism to be in and this whole situation is the biggest obstacle facing Gaudiya Vaishnavism today. Can it be resolved? I don't see how. As long as you have Narayana Maharaja deligitimizing Prabhupada and his rtvik system, calling the babajis as sahajiyas and denouncing the ISKCON organization there can never be any cohesion or solidarity between them. As long as ISKCON keeps affronting Narayana Maharaja and the Gaudiya Math and vice-versa there can never be anything except ugliness in their relationships. All in all, the Saraswata community is a mess. Ananta das babaji is humbly and quietly carrying on his tradition without any this controversy and intrigue. What is not to like? It is a shame that his followers cannot properly represent that position without entering into the controversial matters of trying to defrock the Saraswata sampradaya in order to prove their own superiorty. Proving superiority is not a form of humbleness. Discrediting, defrocking and delegitimizing the Saraswata sampradaya is a very unfortunate and repulsive undertaking for anyone who claims to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava.

Despite the atttractive profile of Ananta das babaji, he is being relegated to a pitiful condition by his followers who think that attacking and insulting the authenticity of the Saraswata parivar will somehow validate themselves and their choices. It's no wonder that people like me long for the good old days when Prabhuapda was our leader and the movement was unified and cohesive. For those of us who got some experience of that, it is very difficult to deal with all the conflict, controversy and competition within the movement today. I really think Srila Prabhupada wanted to avoid all that with his rtvik system and it is the deviation from that system which has resulted in the ugly mess that the movement is in nowadays. However, what has happened cannot be undone and we are now living in the reality of a very fractured and factioned Krishna conciousness movement that is giving Gaudiya Vaishnavism as bad image.

I am very disgusted with all of this. It seems that Ananta das Babaji represents an escape from all that quagmire. His followers have a great responsibility to present this option to the movement in a way that will offer devotees releif from the confict and controversy that has turned the Saraswata sampradaya into a house of cards.
Offering one messed-up alternative in exchange for another is no improvement. This assault on the Saraswata sampradaya by the followers of Ananta das babaji simply implicates his parivar in the same kind of conflict and controversy that has plagued the Saraswata community and made it a repulsive option to a new generation of Vaishnavas around the world.

When the solution becomes part of the problem, it is not a solution anymore.

Rasesh

Your post seems to be very focused on personalities, rather than adopting a particular sadhana. This forum brings
together people who's desire has led them to adopt the path of raganuga bhakti, it is not an Ananta das Babaji fan club, neither is it an anti-saraswat campaign.
The focus on personalities becomes more like a playground activity,e.g. "my dad is better than your dad". This style of thinking may also extend to the process we follow, whether it's "preaching is better than bhajan", or "I'm in the Gopi Bhava group", or "I'm great because I have siddha pranali".
Personally i think that it is not enough just to adopt a stance of being a disciple of such and such great vaisnava or having an elevated sadhana. It then becomes more about being a follower than being a practicioner, unless we put principles into action to change the nature of ourselves how far will we get by just calling ourselves a disciple of XYZ Maharaj or by simply saying we are raganuga.
Prabhupada gave an anology of migrating birds in our relationship with the guru. The bird at the front makes the most effort and this makes it easier for the others to follow, however, they all require substantial effort if they are to arive at their destination.
It is not advisable imo to change your direction without seriously considering sadhya and sadhana. What is the goal you wish to achieve and what is the process by which you desire to obtain it? Are you willing to spend time on a daily practice to achieve this?
It's clear that you've learnt to respond, to be a bold preacher, but I think you would do well to spend more time listening. I mean this in the broadest sense, allow your conceptions to be challenged, this is a healthy activity for all of us. Leave your 'sparky' side alone and just read through the posts on this forum for a while, also review your previous posts and there response. All users on this forum have had their conceptions challenged at some time.
Personally I don't think you have made the most of the answers you've been given so far as you keep going over and over old ground. If you haven't done so, I recommend you purchase a copy of Raga Vartma Candrika, from Advaitadas, to understand the difference between vaidhi bhakti and raganuga bhakti and the qualification to enter into this process. Direct your emotions towards your ista-dev, this way the vast majority of present day gaudiya politics and mud slinging will simply fly over-head.

Jagannatha says:

That seems kind of an odd thing to say. Isn't the parampara nothing but personality?
Isn't it the personalities who exemplify and preserve the living tradition the whole issue of parampara? Otherwise, you would make a good rtvik proponent if you are saying that it is all about techniques, sadhana and principles. I don't necessarily disagree with that proposition, but isn't that something within the realm of a rtvik philosophy? Are we to accept that any and every person who claims raganuga is as good as the other. Are all the raganuga gurus on the same level? Do they all possess equal status, stature and realization? If it's all about sadhana and not about personality, then maybe the rtvik system is the right way after all?
If we don't need living examples to lead and inspire us and all we need is to accept and follow a given sadhana, then what is all this bluster about a living guru? Why can't we just accept the Gaudiya siddhanta that is available in the Vaishnava literature and forget about these personality cults and living gurus? After all, all raganuga gurus are equal and it doesn't matter which one you choose? If we can study Rupa Goswami directly, then what do we need a guru for? What can a guru tell us that Rupa Goswami didn't teach? Maybe I should just bypass all these "personalities" and approach Radharani directly?

From the common sence point of view that is not my duty to try to justify was Srila Bhaktisiddhanta receiving formal diksa or not from Srila Gaura Kisora Das Babaji. The only thing I want to emphasis that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was in close relationship with Srila Gaura Kishora and Srila Gaura Kishora gave him all his uttama-bhagavata’s blessings. That is enouth for that Sri Radha an Sri Krishna Personally take care of Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers.

In most cases all the biographies are hardly demonstrable from the point of view of legal practice because all of them are written by the followers or saints themselves. That is actually the question of faith that is based on common sense. If you see confirmations for your faith in sastras and sadhus then you can think it’s ok. The main poin is adhikar which is shown by the saint. First attraction to the saint arises from his personal example, conduct. If you have natural attraction then you can accept.

Otherwise, that is the buissness of one who want to dissuade the another in something to find ‘hard facts’.

In spiritual practice faith comes first. Secondly intellect comes which is busy in finding some arguments and controversies. Otherwise all you show is only dry filosothical spaculations on the elevated points. And the only result you’ll have is demolished sradha of kanistha-adhikaris.



As fa as I have realised – I have to make my conclusions on the basis of the all context. The context was that the example of the Baba giving sidha-pranaly was compared whith the example of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta who didn’t do that for his followers. And thus the idea of doubting the reliability of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta diksa was implicated (indirectly).

Rasesh Read the first sentence of your quote. It says that you seem to be focused on personalities. It doesn't in any way reject the concept of personality, just that you might look at the issues you've raised from a different perspective.
Adau zraddhA tattaH sAdhu-sango 'tha bhajana-kriyA
The development stage here is that association should develop our practice of bhajan. By enquiring and asking questions the sadhu can give us practical help in our bhajan. By just focussing on the personality of the guru alone ('hanging out with the guru' etc) we may not necessarily develop to the next stage. We can remain in our conception of being a Prabhupada disciple, be respected by others for being such, get the best seat at feasts, being able to have others at our beck and call etc., and just remain in our pessimistic thoughts of how great things were 'in the good ol' days'.
The regular contributors on this site may have different styles of bhajan but generally share the same mood. Raganuga's desire the madhurya rasa. If left to our own devices we prefer to talk of the sweet pastimes of Radha and Krishna. Of the ritvik friends I've known, the topics discussed have a tendency to develop into acrimony and bitterness. Anyone who's been in ISKCON for a while will have plenty of material to regurgitate due to their bad experiences with temple presidents and sannyasis.
I'm sure you make a good ritvik and have the ability to ruffle the feathers of many a GBC. However, I sense that lingering underneath all this is a desire to leave the acrimony and bitterness behind and move towards a more fulfilling lifestyle. I personally believe that bhajan is the answer.